The Possum Bistro

You can do anything you want, as long as you don't get caught.

Being a political observer in Singapore is a tricky venture, since one may be convinced that democracy thrives here, judging by markers of a developed Nation that are undeniably existent - stagnating birth and fertility rates, open economy and such - and thus come to the conclusion that Singapore has reaped phenomenal results since its inception as a Nation-State, more so due to economic development based on the capitalist system than anything else. Lee Kuan Yew and his People's Action Party wrested power from their political rivals, branding them Communists and communalists pandering to Chinese nationalism emanating from Beijing and Malay nationalism from Malaya. As such, Singapore has been regarded as a Nation that is at least amenable, if not wholly in line with democratic ideals.

Take a leisurely stroll down the Singapore River and you can't miss the slightly off-white statue of Sir Stamford Raffles right smack in the middle of the city - a conscious decision was made by the PAP to keep the statue despite ongoing decolonisation that was sweeping across the region: a clear indication of the leadership's recognition of the legitimacy of British colonial rule. From the 1980s onwards, history textbooks would introduce Raffles as the founder of Singapore, though warily avoiding painting him in a nationalistic light for fear of subverting national heritage and history to the British and thereby earning the ire of neighbours for aligning too closely with the West. Still, the British regarded Singapore as a country it could do business with, sans the pandering to anti-Western sentiment.

Behind Singaporean foreign policy, the ideology of vulnerability has always been a constant fixture of national propaganda: surrounded by a sea of potentially hostile Muslim countries (not an invalid assumption given the circumstances surrounding the Indonesian Konfrontasi and Malaysian resentment over the merger-split with Singapore) and lacking any strategic depth in terms of conducting a defensive war, the Nation-State simply had to adopt deterrence as the main stance in defence - thus, technologically advanced weapons systems and capabilities are a constant obsession of the Singapore Armed Forces, the Air Force and the Navy. If it came down to it, Singapore would be better off launching a preemptive assault instead of digging in.

Disputes between Singapore and its neighbours over issues such as land reclamation and water prices frequently populate the geopolitical landscape in the region; Singapore's choice to recruit Israeli advisers to train its army generated resentment among its neighbours; its phenomenal economic success and magnified status on the international level, not to mention military advantages over its neighbours - these factors have caused eyes from abroad to turn green with poisonous envy. Singapore has exploited ASEAN as a platform to reiterate the importance of respecting national sovereignty of states and non-interference in their affairs. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979 was taken up by Singapore as a case study to reaffirm the institution's resistance against the precedent of a stronger Nation violating the sovereignty of a weaker Nation - obviously attempting to secure a guarantee of collective deterrence against any potential aggressor who had designs on the small Nation-State.

Does that not seem familiar to another geographically-challenged state - Israel? Not entirely unexpected, considering that Israeli advisers did train and inculcate approaches towards military strategy and tactics in local commanders - one would have made the connection if he or she had been paying attention. Undoubtedly for states dwarfed by its neighbours, the main pressing concern for the government is national sovereignty and how exactly to defend external actors from threatening to violate it, or exploiting internal divisions to rupture the state apart. Lee Kuan Yew saliently took into consideration the dangers of aligning too closely to China for fear of subjugating Singapore into a client or proxy state, and the PAP institutionalised multi-culturalism as a cornerstone of its social engineering policies to avoid ethnic segregation that could be too tantalising a fissure for neighbouring countries to pass up exploiting.

Speaking of defending state sovereignty, anyone remember the League of Nations that was Woodrow Wilson's creation? Spawned from notions of self-determination and a product of the American's disenchantment with the previous balance-of-power arrangement in Europe which he believed was the cause of the first World War, the League would engage in collective security and conduct diplomacy between Nations - a new world order which Wilson hoped would effectively prevent escalation of disputes between states. However, an alliance can only do as much as its members want it to. This axiom manifested itself through Congressional resistance to the League which translated into a dearth of American support for upholding the Treaty; the British chose to ease war reparations from Germany in order to spur the latter's economy so that it could pay Britain back, thereby leaving France alone to uphold the Treaty.

These circumstances were sustained throughout the 1920s and 1930s - when it came down to the task of defending sovereignty in terms of Austria and Czechoslovakia, the powers had no military answer to an increasingly emboldened Hitler and Nazi designs on Europe. The void of enthusiasm towards sustaining the League and its principles ate away at its members, leading them to adopt appeasement as a long-term strategy till it was an end in itself. One flaw of the League that smaller Nations pointed out was that larger powers still dictated which entities could be sacrificed to keep the peace - in this case, Czechoslovakia. The UN was forged with this consideration in mind: how to ensure proper representation such that each and every member has a stake in international stability and peace and does not feel alienated.

Back to defending sovereignty in the Singaporean context: the UN is thus unlikely to criticise Singapore when it seems hypocritical to deny such a physically small country among a sea of Muslims its inalienable right of sovereignty - even when human rights are blatantly violated (h/t wretchard):

The AP reports that Singapore is holding 39 terrorist suspects indefinitely and without trial. Even the list of suspects is apparently secret. I thought Guantanamo Prison was the worst place in the world? Now maybe Singapore will be condemned by the United Nations for Human Rights violations. But somehow I doubt it because I equally doubt whether Singapore gives a damn.

Diplomatic agreements are Nation State to Nation State affairs, and are the guiding principle of how Nations interact with each other. 'International Law', then, only has force if those who have signed up to the agreements involved respect those agreements or are punished by the other signer(s) to uphold such agreements.

[...] Without diplomacy having any backing via the Rights of Nation States to enforce their Sovereignty and the backing of well understood agreements upon other Nations that have signed such agreements and blatantly disregard them, the entirety of the Nation State system is put at peril. The ability of Nation States to have reciprocity in their agreements and to be held to them is essential in this conceptions of Nation States as Sovereign containers. Within this system is the scope and capability to have all sorts of internal governments, and the interaction between these governments is done via diplomacy and held accountable by military action.

[...] If you don't support the Reciprocity and Accountability, then you do not support the idea that ANY NATION has value. You may not discriminate on this, from the weakest to the most powerful from the most free to the most repressive to their own people: If these Nations cannot be held accountable, then the structure of this system is put at risk and YOUR personal freedoms and liberties are put at risk right along with it.

The argument used to work for the Israelis back in the 1950s, maybe. But that was before they beat the living daylights out of all Arab comers. And now people figure that Israel, being so much more competent, ought to spot the Arabs a handicap, like they do in golf.

The USA, being orders of magnitude more powerful than Israel is supposed to give its enemies an even greater handicap. It is often asserted that the suicide bomber is moral because it is the "poor man's F-16", and one should just smile indulgently if Hamas goes and attacks the kindergarten or daycare center because after all, he would stand no chance going up against the IDF outpost. But against a daycare center or Israeli supermarket, well that's "fair". America, being bigger, is supposed to shrug off 3,000 dead in Manhattan and just concentrate on "healing". Not unleash the US Armed Forces on the miscreants. That's disproportionate. No. It should be all like 18 holes between friends and a drink at the clubhouse.